NAT64/NAT-PT update in IETF, was: Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests [re "impacting revenue"]

Wed Apr 22 21:39:18 UTC 2009

Ron Bonica is leading a BOF during NANOG46 in Philly which may be of interest -

BOF: IETF OPS & MGMT Area,
Ron Bonica, Juniper Networks
Presentation Date: June 14, 2009, 2:00 PM - 3:30 PM

Abstract:
The IETF OPS & MGMT Area documents management technologies and
operational best common practices. The purpose of this BoF is to
review activities in that area and solicit feedback to determine the
usefulness of those activities to the operator community. We will also
solicit proposals for new work that is of interest to users.

The full agenda is up at - http://www.nanog.org/meetings/nanog46/agenda.php
Cheers, -ren

On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 5:18 PM, Iljitsch van Beijnum
<iljitsch at muada.com> wrote:
>
> On 22 apr 2009, at 22:12, Jack Bates wrote:
>
>> I think this annoys people more than anything. We're how many years into the development and deployment cycle of IPv6? What development cycle is expected out of these CPE devices after a spec is FINALLY published?
>
> That's certainly one way to look at this, and I'm just as unhappy about how long this has taken as you. On the other hand, it has been argued that these issues are outside the scope of the IETF in the first place, as it's just application of already established protocols, not developing something new. So another way to look at it is that at least the IETF is finally doing something because so far, nobody else has. What would have helped here is more push in this direction.
>
>> If the IETF is talking "future" and developers are also talking "future", us little guys that design, build, and maintain the networks can't really do much. I so hope that vendors get sick of it and just make up their own proprietary methods of doing things. Let the IETF catch up later on.
>
> People who run networks can do a lot: believe it or not, the IETF really wants input from network operators, especially in the early phases of protocol development when the requirements are established.
>
> Proprietary methods duking it out in the market place is nice for stuff that happens inside one box or at least within one administrative domain, but it would be a nightmare in broadband deployment where I want my Windows box to talk to my Apple wifi base station and my Motorola cable modem to the ISP's Cisco headend and their Extreme switches and Juniper routers.
>
>